United States v. Avalos, No. 15-1695 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed his conviction and sentence for possession with intent to distribute fifty grams or more of methamphetamine. The court concluded that the district court permissibly concluded that an investigator's testimony would be helpful to the jury in understanding the recorded phone calls at issue and the district court properly admitted this testimony; the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant; and defendant's sentence of 360 months in prison is not substantively unreasonable where the district court had ample reason to treat the coconspirators differently, and defendant's sentence was longer due primarily to an extensive criminal history that qualified him as a career offender and his refusal to accept responsibility for his criminal conduct. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Loken and Murphy, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. No error in admitting expert testimony regarding the coded language defendant used in the calls he made from jail; evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for possession of methamphetamine with intent to distribute; sentence was not substantively unreasonable and any disparity with a co-defendant's sentence was based on differences in their criminal history and defendant's refusal to accept responsibility.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.